Re: Fluoride is a drug when consumed for medical or dental purpose per FDA

A. You raise the issue of "foods" vs "drugs" and reference an opinion of the Mayo Clinic rather than the FDA. The FDA is more precise. But lets look closer. The FDA regulates industry claims and has given precise wording. Read their web pages, many of them.

And is a high fiber diet listed in the US Pharmacopea? No.

You are correct, there is a difference between foods and drugs and the fine line can be confusing. For one thing, a food is not a highly toxic substance defined in law as highly toxic or poison. Fluoride is highly toxic and if not regulated under pesticide laws or drug laws is regulated under poison laws.

And the FDA has determined fluoride is to be regulated as a drug, not a food or mineral. Read the toothpaste labels.

You call the FDA a joke, but you need to read and study how to indroduce a drug, the definitions of drugs and how the FDA regulates drugs vs foods. You think the FDA is funny because you have not read their web pages or gone through the approval process. I have with an approved device and the FDA is excellent and fair. They are not a joke. You think they are a joke because you don't understand their rules.

Now to the second point. Don't be a bully. Be professional and use professional words. Several places I have pointed out you lack a full understanding, but I have not called you a liar. Derogatory personal attacks don't look well on you.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

"I looked at the facts on salmon in Sacramanto, made a deduction and since that was against a fluoridation belief system I was called "a liar.""

No, you were claiming to be making a declarative fact, not a deduction. You call yourself a scientist and you make outrageous claims with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. No fluoride levels measured in the river, no fluoride levels measured in the fish, no measurement of fluoride levels in effluent discharge . . you just know it. Ok, I won't call you a liar, but you're no scientist either.

"Carry Ann clarified a post so that it would not be misinterpreted again by someone who wants to misinterpret it, and she is also called "a liar.""

Response: No, I called out "Carrie Anne" because of an error of fact that she had made. "Carrie Anne" then edited her original post to cover up her original statement and then attacked me for pointing out her error of fact. That's about as dishonest as it gets.

"Now Dr.Osmunsen who correctly states that the U.S. Pharmacopia lists fluoride if ingested as a drug (since it is not a normal bodily component), and Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics lists fluoride in water as a drug, and the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug, and yet he also is called "a liar.""

Response: No U.S. Federal Agency calls optimally fluoridated water a "drug" - Period. No matter how much you twist and squirm and try to spin it, that is the simple fact. We are talking about water fluoridation here. Anything else is irrelevant.

Your quote: "the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug,"

Response: Was he speaking on behalf of the FDA? Are you saying this is the FDA's official position? If so, show me the link. If not, your comment is nothing short of deceptive.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

"Rhetorical deceits." Hilarious. You made a statement that was factually incorrect. I called you out on it. You edited your own comment - to cover up - and then attacked me for pointing it out.

Get real. And now you are re-writing history. "ORIGINAL:"...they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF." -- i.e., they (the FDA, when taken in context of the entire sentence.)

I stand by my statement that you are dishonest, and it has been fully documented here.

Now what's the problem with your NSF timeline? The NSF water additives program began in 1985 because that is when it was contracted by the EPA. So what?

As for the rest of your attachment. I don't see the problem. You are talking about what they didn't know in 1983 about the health effects of fluoride in water at over 4 times the optimal level. 4 times the optimal level of fluoride is not relevant to community water fluoridation. That's like saying, my doctor prescribed 2 aspirin, so I took 8 instead - same thing, right? Now why am I throwing up blood?

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

I looked at the facts on salmon in Sacramanto, made a deduction and since that was against a fluoridation belief system I was called "a liar." Carry Ann clarified a post so that it would not be misinterpreted again by someone who wants to misinterpret it, and she is also called "a liar."

Now Dr.Osmunsen who correctly states that the U.S. Pharmacopia lists fluoride if ingested as a drug (since it is not a normal bodily component), and Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics lists fluoride in water as a drug, and the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug, and yet he also is called "a liar."

Between us and this criticizer, I know who is trying to pull the wool over readers.

And the Office of Water most certainly wrote that adding chemicals to treat people, rather than the water, as for fluoride, is the resonsibility of the FDA, not the EPA. The joint MOU between the EPA and FDA, that FDA requested to attempt to avoid regulating fluoridation, was dissolved long ago.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Fluoride trolls play with language for rhetorical deceits. My original was gramatically correct, but could be misinterpretted which DavidF did..... so I repeated the subject ' EPA' in the second part of of that phrase.

ORIGINAL:"...they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF."

FOR CLARITY: "...they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and EPA attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF."

Re: NSF and EPA Timeline: Colleagues in Cover-up

"Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF. "

As I said, that is incorrect. The FDA does not contract with NSF.

When I just took a look at your original comment I see that you have corrected yourself. This is your edited comment:

" Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and the EPA attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF."

That is correct. EPA contracts with NSF. I'm glad to see you listened to me and corrected your error.

NSF and EPA Timeline: Colleagues in Cover-up

NSF timeline from their own website shows they began working with the EPA on establishing standards for plumbing equipment in 1980 and assumed responsibility for water additives per EPA agreement in 1985: http://www.nsf.org/about-nsf/mission-values-history

Another important thing to realize is that in 1983, the Surgeon General created a special committee to ascertain just how big a deal dental fluorosis was. The committee told him in May that yes, dental fluorosis is an 'adverse health effect' and confirmed the MCL should remain at 2.4. Yet, the Sept. report of those committee proceedings inexplainably said dental fluorosis was a 'cosmetic effect' and in 1984 the EPA process began to increase the 2.4 MCL/MCLG to 4 ppm, which wouldn't have been possible if dental fluorosis was listed as an adverse health effect. That change was implemented in 1985 without any scientific backing from the EPA who simultaneously contracted with the NSF to oversee water additives. http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/epa/timeline/

Here is an excerpt from that May 1983 report out that was altered in Sept 1983 by unknown parties order to facilitate changes that endangered public health but were politically expedient for players. Latest government figures confirm that over half of American teens have dental fluorosis, with 1 in 5 having moderate to severe dental fluorosis (est. 800,000 severe):

Re: Fluoride is a drug when consumed for medical or dental purpose per FDA

Your quote: "In my last post I told you how Congress defines a drug. One way is "INTENT" of use. FDA considers a placebo a drug. Makes no difference if it works or if it does not work, the INTENT is key to a drug."

This is a quote from a Mayo Clinic website:

" A high-fiber diet may also help reduce the risk of obesity, heart disease and diabetes."

You say the INTENT makes something a drug. The Mayo Clinic says if you eat Apples, Beans, Bran, Oranges, Carrots . . . as part of a high-fiber diet, you are helping yourself reduce the risk of diabetes.

According to what you just said, if you want to stay heart-healthy, you're drugging yourself when you eat an apple, because your INTENT has medical consequences.

Re: Fluoride is a drug when consumed for medical or dental purpose per FDA

billo, we were talking about "Carry Anne"'s false statement that the FDA outsourced its workload to NSF. Your comment here is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Nevertheless, the EPA has never said that the FDA is responsible for adding fluoroscilic acid to water distribution systems. What you just said is a blatant lie. If you have some kind of problem with reality, or you think something illegal is going on, the correct forum for that is a Court of Law, not the comment's section of an AARP website.

Oh, sure, it's easier to pull the wool over the eyes of an AARP website administrator, but not so easy in court where you would have to face informed parties.

You know, I'm surprised that a legal genius like yourself would make such a laughable blunder as to lie about a supposed Freedom of Information Act Request that you made to clarify the meaning of a clear statute in the SDWA. The FIOA doesn't exist to clarify law. It exists to request documents which have been hidden from the public.

Re: Fluoride is a drug when consumed for medical or dental purpose per FDA

That is correct. And nothing in your comment has disproven that. The Netherlands is not a Federal Agency. Nor is any foreign country a U.S. Federal Agency.

Toothpaste is not optimally fluoridated water. Pure fluoride is not optimally fluoridated water . . . just as pure oxygen, an FDA approved drug, is not optimally oxyginated air. Air is not a "drug" simply because 20.95% of it is an FDA approved theraputic drug.

Oh, by the way, as you people love to point out, endorsements don't prove a thing.